Court Strikes Out NSSF Employee’s Job Bid Over Procedure

A Nairobi labour court has struck out a petition challenging how NSSF handled internal recruitment.

The case involved an employee who believed he was unfairly excluded from promotion.

He accused the Fund of favouring selected applicants during the interview process.
But the court never reached the heart of those allegations against NSSF.

Instead, Justice Monica Mbarũ found that Kennedy Omolloh Ayakoh had moved too soon.

The judge said Ayakoh should first have pursued NSSF’s internal grievance procedures.

The court nevertheless rejected NSSF’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction altogether.

That distinction makes the ruling significant for employees challenging workplace recruitment decisions.

Ayakoh was already employed by NSSF when the dispute over recruitment emerged.

On May 18, 2026, the Fund internally advertised several positions for existing employees.

Ayakoh subsequently applied for Principal Compliance Officer, Branch Manager position on June 3.

His application followed procedures published through NSSF’s internal Web Talk platform.

A Bitter Exclusion

Ayakoh was not shortlisted for the position and therefore missed the interviews.

NSSF explained that he had failed to satisfy several minimum requirements.

The Fund cited professional qualifications, membership and management training among those deficiencies.

It also said Ayakoh lacked previous experience in a management position.

Ayakoh, however, believed something more troubling had happened inside the recruitment process.

He alleged that NSSF directly contacted favoured applicants about their interviews.

He further complained that the Fund failed to publish shortlisted candidates’ names.

That conduct, he argued, denied applicants transparency about a competitive recruitment exercise.

His challenge therefore went beyond disappointment over missing out on promotion.
Ayakoh argued that NSSF had violated several constitutional protections and public-service principles.

His petition invoked Articles 10, 27, 35, 47 and 232 of Constitution.

He cited equality, access to information and fair administrative action among those protections.

He also alleged that NSSF had violated legitimate expectations created by internal policies.

Those policies, he argued, promised a transparent and properly regulated recruitment process.

He claimed the Fund instead handpicked applicants without adequate transparency or accountability.

NSSF strongly disputed that characterisation and defended its recruitment process.

NSSF’s Procedural Defence

NSSF responded by filing a preliminary objection on July 7, 2026.

The Fund’s central argument rested upon the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies.

It argued that Ayakoh should first have invoked NSSF’s internal grievance machinery.

That mechanism is contained within Section 12 of the Human Resources Manual.

NSSF also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the recruitment dispute.

It relied on a recent Supreme Court decision involving recruitment-related employment disputes.

The Fund maintained that Ayakoh’s complaint concerned a pre-employment recruitment process.

It therefore argued that the petition should be struck out immediately.

Ayakoh rejected that position and defended his decision to approach court directly.

He argued that exhaustion was not an absolute rule in constitutional disputes.

What’s more, he maintained that constitutional violations justified direct judicial intervention in appropriate circumstances.

He also insisted that his petition sufficiently identified the rights allegedly violated.

But Justice Mbarũ drew an important line between jurisdiction and procedure.

The judge found that the Employment and Labour Relations Court had jurisdiction.

Ayakoh remained an NSSF employee despite applying for another internal position.

The court therefore held that it could hear his employment-related constitutional complaint.

The Procedural Trap

The real problem emerged when the judge examined NSSF’s internal grievance procedure.

Section 12 provided employees with specific channels for challenging workplace grievances.

Complaints could initially be presented to line managers for internal consideration.

Those complaints could subsequently move through the prescribed management escalation process.

Ayakoh had not used that mechanism before filing his constitutional petition.

That omission proved decisive because the exhaustion doctrine ordinarily requires internal remedies first.

Justice Mbarũ described courts as forums of last resort for workplace grievances.

The principle prevents employees from turning every workplace disagreement into immediate litigation.

The court found that NSSF’s grievance procedure provided sufficient safeguards for employees.

Those safeguards covered grievances arising from internal recruitment procedures as well.

There were consequently no exceptional circumstances justifying Ayakoh’s decision to bypass them.

The judge therefore concluded that his petition had been filed prematurely.

That conclusion did not mean Ayakoh’s allegations were proved wrong.

Nor did it establish that NSSF conducted an entirely lawful recruitment exercise.

The court simply did not reach those substantive questions during this proceeding.

The petition ended because the required internal route had not been followed.

Victory With A Caveat

Justice Mbarũ consequently found merit in NSSF’s preliminary objection and struck out.

The ruling expressly stated that the court nevertheless possessed the necessary jurisdiction.

That means NSSF secured a procedural victory rather than a substantive vindication.

The court never determined whether Ayakoh suffered discrimination during the recruitment process.

The ruling also leaves potentially important questions unanswered about NSSF’s recruitment practices.

For example, the court did not establish whether favoured candidates received preferential treatment.

It also did not determine whether NSSF breached its own recruitment procedures.

Those questions could become relevant if Ayakoh exhausts internal remedies successfully.

The court also declined to impose costs against Ayakoh despite striking out his petition.

Justice Mbarũ cited the importance of continued employment and industrial peace.

That decision softened the immediate consequences of the procedural defeat for Ayakoh.

The ruling ultimately sends a straightforward message to employees and employers alike.

Having a constitutional grievance does not automatically permit bypassing internal procedures.

Employees must generally exhaust available workplace remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

READ ALSO: Safaricom Wins Court Battle Against KSh1.2 Million-a-Month Manager Fired Over Data Allegations

Employers, meanwhile, must maintain credible grievance mechanisms capable of handling complaints fairly.

For Ayakoh, the battle therefore ended without a ruling on recruitment’s substance.

He lost because he reached the courtroom before completing the required internal journey.

For NSSF, the victory carries no judicial declaration clearing its recruitment process.

The central dispute may therefore remain alive beyond this particular ruling.

PAY ATTENTION: Reach us at info@gotta.news.